This thread is for the sake of people thinking if NexStar can take Astro Photo images, kind of additional equipment needed, methods, and advice. Hopefully, this thread will be able to answer their direct questions on NexStar for AP.

A separate Companion NexStar graduates thread discusses AP aspects one way or another related to NexStar, be that equipment, methods, or community formed around it. I will be mostly posting in that thread since I consider myself a "NexStar Graduate".

This is an amazing image of Jupiter and I only wish I knew why I never get images like that with my 10"!!! Given my equipment it can only be down to the one thing I can't change easily... my location/local conditions

Nat, that was my thought exactly. I can't fathom how Eric is doing image after image at that quality. He used Televue Barlow x3 and i-Nova PLA-Mx camera with his 6SE to make these images. I have TV Barlow x5 but yet to make a good use of it. I am not sure if Eric is using any "tricks" for his processing that make them consistently sharp. I believe it's a combination of good seeing conditions and fine tuned optical path in addition to his processing routine.

I agree Alex, thats why I think this thread is so important actually, when people can see what it being produced with equipment thats virtually identical to their own, it show's what they can aim for, of course as we have both found, equipment is only part of the equation, but direct comparison is a big help in the learning curve!

I've been following the imaging thread the last few days with all the interesting discussions!

I would just like to restate what others have so accurately stated, how helpful the original imaging thread has been to me and others as we have gone through evaluation and acquisition of our scopes, the setup and use, and the follow-on addition of imaging equipment. I have to tell you that this forum and the imaging thread was a major factor, no it WAS the factor, in my decision to purchase the 8SE.

I now see that we have two imaging threads, this one for original Nextstar scopes, and the "graduate" imaging threads. This will hopefully do two things - 1) encourage graduates, (and others that have never had a NexStar) to keep posting! It is so valuable to people like me to see what others are doing as they progress to other mounts, other OTA's, and other imaging systems! And, 2) encourage pure NexStar users to post their images - as crude as they may be.

My only reservation with splitting the images into two threads is that the "graduates" might tend to ignore the pure NexStar thread. This would be a real loss to the beginners, as they would miss valuable feedback and encouragement.

So it is with that thought that I challenge you graduates to keep involved in this pure NexStar thread.

This is an image I took last year when I first started imaging. This is taken with my 130SLT and a modified Logitech Fusion webcam at prime focus. I had to do the image in quarter moons and stitch them together in Photoshop.

Alright, here is deal with Ryan 211's Jupiter image from the last massive thread. Tel challenged me once again (the way he does that is so subtle, no?) to process the data. The data was collected with NexStar 8SE. Medium to better seeing conditions.

Here is my observations based on examining the original data:

1. Bands are clearly separated with some hint of more details on the edges.2. Details inside of the lighter regions are not resolved, not even a hint.3. Edge has a ghost image from the processing.

Based on this observations, I chose this strategy in potential improving the image:

1. Separate the bands even further with some contrast enhancement of the edges.2. Do not bother with the internal regions of the bands, meaning do not apply much sharpening techniques such as wavelet parameter available in Registax at high frequency levels (Level 1 and 2).3. Carefully watch for the edge and limit edge enhancing techniques to not cause severe degradation of the edge.

The steps I thought would be appropriate for strategy #1:First, I loaded the original image without resizing in Registax and played with the wavelet sliders to extract a bit more definition of the edges, while keeping an eye on strategies 2 and 3.

After some moderate detail retrieval I saved the image as TIFF and opened it in Photoshop. Main goal in Photoshop was to increase color/intensity contrast to further emphasize separation of the bands. I used good old Curves to slightly modify the color curve:

After the slight curves, I applied some De-noise and Gaussian filters.

Finally, I loaded the output from Photoshop into a freeware tool that I am beginning to like more and more, RawTherapee. The RT has an interesting (and growing) capability to apply Deconvolution algorithms to further clean up the edges and carefully control amount of frequency noise in both color and intensity domains:

The ghost image of the edge was still bothering me. I returned to Photoshop, selected the black space around Rayn's Jupiter (it's not black) and applied a bit of the "Feather" to the selection. I then expanded the selection by a few pixels inside the image. Next, replaced the selection with the background color. Effectively, it meant shrinking the border of Jupiter inwards, removing the hard edge present in the ghost circle.

Finally, I resized the image in Preview on my Mac to get it fit into this forum requirements:

Can the resulting image match the clarity of Eric's 6SE images? No. Is it an improvement on the original? According to my set objectives, yes. The bands are more prominent, contrast is better. The edge ghost is not pronounced.

The beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. Is my processing "better" than Ryan's or Tel's? I am not the one to judge. I extracted features that I saw promising in his original image. My strategy and methods are for everyone to see. It took me about 3 hours to play with different settings and go back and forth on the tools. Was it worth it? Hell yes, it was fun.

Excellent, Alex!! You are so correct in your statement that beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. But regardless of our individual tastes, your work process is what is really excellent about your post. We can each play with the parameters to get whatever satisfies our particular tastes. Thanks so much!

There is an excellent Yahoo Group that will let you practice processing and let you compare your results against the "experts". It also gives a recommended work process to use for processing images.

It is the dslr_astro_image_processing group. Go and join it. I'm finding it great fun and really valuable experience in the processing realm.

Oh, to do the processing according to the work flow, you have to have Photoshop, Carboni's Astro actions, and another great little program - Gradient Xterminator. Some of the folks on the group use other programs, like Gimp, for processing, rather than PS.

I have PS and I find the group a great help for learning the ins and outs of PS (complex program).

Thanks for the info about the Yahoo processing group. That is just what I need.

Ok, here is an image that I am not proud of - but I have been working on this for some time and its the best I can get via processing. So feedback welcome and any recommendations for processing. The Fireworks Galaxy. Uggbits did a great job of capturing it and I was trying to get close. This one is a tough one!

I am puzzled by the red color of the galaxy that came out - quite different than Uggbits rather pale purple coloring. I am also not happy with all the noise in the image. This first image is pretty much over processed.

That is a rather odd colouring Doug. I don't really play around with the colours in my images much - I'm not very good at it, so I just go by Nasa images for reference, and if it looks close I don't touch it. I'm saying this so you don't think I've been pulling processing shenanigans on you!

First off, I can't remember how much integration time I had on that galaxy, but I do recall that A - it wasn't enough, and B - processing it was a nightmare.

You have the main galaxy image, including the dust lanes visible, so you are getting into the meat of what the galaxy has to offer, but your results are skewed to the red. I would suggest both more total exposure (sorry, I know this is easier said than done) and if you could a list of your DSS settings on the processing side, because we may be able to help you out there. As I said, this was one tough puppy.

Off the top of my head I would say that you should try RGB background calibration on maximum to get the data mountains lined up, and let us know how that small step goes.

If I can find it I'll figure out how to make my data available to you, and you can play with it. I feel like I did 45 second subs (Astronomics says you can go "up to" five minutes in alt/az - hah!) without too much rotation. Might have been one minute subs come to think of it. Total integration was 2h 15m (looked it up).

As I was re-reading this I downloaded your pic and looked into the data on it. There is quite a bit of red signal compared to the other two. If I boost the red curve, more of the galaxy shows, but if I boost the other two it just changes the colour. I think this is just because I'm working with a JPEG, but I'm not positive. Try restacking and give it anouther go. Good luck!

Yes, it looks like the red was intensified, but I did not touch any color balance in processing. Funny, when I look at the image after stacking in DSS, then play with the levels and curves in DSS, there is no color at all.

In the images above, I did no processing in DSS, I went directly into GIMP and used levels and curves only. I am wondering if GIMP is the problem - maybe holding me back, as it is limited to 8 bit processing?

I assume you are using PS. What version? I may have to make an investment in software...

Doug, if you could export a TIFF from DSS, then resize/save as JPG without any manipulations in GIMP, we could have a look. Of course it would be better to look at the TIFF, if you have a place where you can store it.

Eric, outstanding image and animation. In several frames the details in the bands are clearly visible. Also, the structure around the GRS in the middle of animation shows some details in the wall, so it's not just a spot. There are details both in north and south regions. How many raw frames did you use per animation frame? Thanks.

20 videos in SER format, 5 minutes spaced. In each video, 1200 frames @ 30-35 fps, 800 stacked for each image. I had a registration's problem with Registax6 for the 7th frame of the animation, so 300 frames stacked only for it (unfortunately, the defect is clearly visible in this 7th animation's picture).